OK, I admit I am a bit behind on my reading as I recently perused the April 30 edition of The Wall Street Journal. Albeit accidentally, it was a good exercise as I read David Greenberg’s extensive column comparing the Republicans’ situation on that date to that in 1976, to wit: “But as in 1976, there is ominous talk today that the GOP is in crisis – possibly headed for extinction, like the antebellum Whig Party.”

However, in short order, the party possibly headed for “extinction” won the presidency, kept control of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, gained control of 33 out of 50 governorships, and won control of both chambers of the legislatures in 32 states (with Democrats controlling both chambers in only 5 states).

I’m not sure what the future of the Democratic Party is if the above-described status of the Republican Party might indicate it is “headed for extinction.”

As I continued to catch up on my reading, on July 28, the WSJ’s Colleen McCain Nelson reported, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager … challenged Donald Trump’s statement that he could be competitive in Democratic strongholds, urging the Republican nominee to stump in traditionally blue states.” It looks like Trump took Robby Mook’s advice – proving Trump didn’t need Vladimir Putin’s help when he had the advantage of the expertise of both his own campaign manager and his opponent’s campaign manager. Evidently, Kellyanne Conway was not as magnanimous when it came to sharing her expertise with the opposition.

These examples should encourage us to look back on the 2016 presidential election and track the prognostications of the “experts” who predicted Trump did not know what he was doing, would stumble at the start of the primary season, then would not get over 25 percent of any state’s primary vote, then would not get over 33 percent of any vote, then would not get 50 percent of any vote and then would be soundly conquered by Hillary Clinton.

One of the latest predictions given far more credence than it deserves is that of American University professor Allan Lichtman, who predicted Trump’s victory. Now Lichtman is predicting Trump’s impeachment. With Republicans solidly in control of the House, it is highly unlikely Lichtman’s prediction will ever even be tested. And the odds of the Republican Senate convicting an impeached President Trump are infinitesimal. Perhaps the good professor would make a wager with me?

Instead of pivoting after securing the Republican nomination, Trump maintained his personal turn to the right and surprised the pundits by winning anyway – just one more example of the success of his unorthodoxy. Post-election, however, he then pivoted by saying (1) he would not want his administration to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton (that could change based on recount requests, which will offend Trump), (2) climate change needed to be considered after all, (3) “The Wall” might include fencing and electronic segments, and (4) his focus would be on deporting undocumented criminals in the United States rather than going after all 11 million undocumented residents. These statements moderated much of the postelection criticism of Trump.

However, Trump’s appointments laid the foundation for a very conservative regime intent on dismantling much of the legacy of President Barack Obama – consistent with what he said he would do. Appointees such as Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Reince Priebus, Michael Flynn, Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos and Mike Pompeo, among many others, leave little room for doubt.

So the moderation in verbiage is being more than offset by Trump’s assembly of a team which only can be described as a truly conservative purebred. These are the people who will be doing the work of the Trump administration. And when one to three Supreme Court Justice nominations are added to the equation, the impact of the 2016 elections will resonate for decades. New predictions anyone?